Bangalore District Court
Smt. Gangadevi G.R vs Sri. Mahesh.G on 23 January, 2020
1 C.C.No.19353/2016 J
THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
i. Dated:- This the 23rd day of January, 2020
Present: Sri.S.B.HANDRAL, B.Sc., L.L.B(SPL).,
XVI Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.19353/2016
Complainant : Smt. Gangadevi G.R,
W/o. Sri.Jayaramu,
Major,
R/at No.123, 4th Cross,
Eshwarinagara,
Banashankari 3rd stage,
Hosakerehalli,
Bengaluru -560 085.
(By Sri. D.B.Srinviasa Reddy.,)
- Vs -
Accused : Sri. Mahesh.G,
S/o.Govindaiah,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at No.96, I Main Raod,
3rd Cross, Havanoor Extension,
Peenya Dasarahalli,
Bengaluru -560 073.
(Rep. by Sri. A.G.Ballolli., Adv.,)
Case instituted : 5.7.2016
Offence complained : U/s 138 of N.I Act
of
2 C.C.No.19353/2016 J
Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is convicted
Date of order : 23.1.2020
JUDGMENT
The Complainant has filed this complaint against the Accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Briefly stated the case of the Complainant is that, the Accused is the Assistant Manager of Deepak Co-operative Bank, Vidyaranyapura Branch, Bengaluru. She had taken loan of Rs.20 Lakhs from Sahakara Co-operative Bank, Kodigehalli Branch, Yelahanka Bengaluru with the help of brokers i.e one Anand and Raju and also availed personal loan from some other persons. The above said brokers recommended her to obtain a loan in Deepak Co-operative Bank, Vidyaranyapura Branch, accordingly her husband Jayaram along with the brokers contacted the Accused and manager by name Kulkarni of the said bank seeking for loan, the Accused promised to get sanction of the loan to the tune of Rs.40 Lakhs. It is further contended that, 3 C.C.No.19353/2016 J during January 2014 the Accused got sanctioned a loan of Rs.20 Lakhs only and at the time of sanctioning of loan the Accused took blank cheques from her husband i.e. cheques bearing No. 492737, 492738, 492739, 492740, and 492744 of SBI, Vijayanagar Branch, and also took another two blank cheques on 23.9.2014 bearing nos. 492749 and 492750 of the said bank and also received blank cheques bearing nos.001028, 001029, 001030, 001031 and 001032 of City Union Bank, Banashankari 3rd Stage, Bengaluru from her for security. It is further contended by the complainant that, during January 2014 she withdrawn an amount of Rs.19 Lakhs out of the said amount the Accused had taken a sum of Rs.9,50,000/= as a hand loan from her and Rs.6 Lakhs for brokerage i.e. Anand and Raju forcibly taken from her and the Accused promised to return the said amount within three months as the said amount is required for production of his film, accordingly she has paid the amount as the Accused will get sanction of the loan, thereafter two months, the Accused returned a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs and still is due to the tune of Rs.7,50,000/=, after several request and demands 4 C.C.No.19353/2016 J the Accused had issued a cheque bearing No. 594504 dated: 2.5.2016 for sum of Rs.7,50,000/= drawn on State Bank of India, Rajajinagar, II Block, Subramanyanagar Bengaluru and assured to honour the said cheque on its presentation. Thereafter, she was presented the said cheque for encashment through her banker i.e., City Union Bank Ltd., Banashankari branch, Bengaluru but the said cheque was dishonoured with the endorsement of "Funds Insufficient' dated: 4.5.2016 and thereafter she approached the Accused and informed about the dishonour of cheque and also demanded the Accused to pay the amount but he had drag on the same on one pretext or other, finally on 28.5.2016 she got issued legal notice through her counsel to the Accused by RPAD and also through courier and the same have been duly served on the Accused on 30.5.2016 but the Accused neither paid the amount covered under the cheque nor replied to the notice Hence the complainant has filed this present complainant against the Accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
5 C.C.No.19353/2016 J3. Before issuing process against the accused, the Complainant has filed her affidavit-in-lieu of her sworn statement, in which, she has reiterated the averments of the complaint. In support of her sworn statement, P.W.1 has relied upon the documentary evidence as per Ex.C.1 to C.6 i.e, Original Cheque dated:-2.5.2016 as per Ex.C.1, the signature on the said cheque identified by P.W.1 as that of the accused as per Ex.C.1(a), the Bank Memo as per Ex.C.2, the office copy of the Legal Notice as per Ex.C.3, the Postal Receipt as per Ex.C.4, courier receipt as per Ex.C.5, postal acknowledgement as per Ex.C.6.
4. Prima-facie case has been made out against the accused and summons was issued against the accused in turn he has appeared before the court and got enlarged on bail and the substance of the accusation has been read over to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
5. In view of the principles of law laid down and as per the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision of the Indian Bank Association 6 C.C.No.19353/2016 J Vs., Union of India, reported in 2014 (5) SCC 590, after recording the plea of the accused, as he intended to set out his defence, the learned counsel for the Accused cross examined the complainant and complainant side was closed.
6. Thereafter, the statement of the accused as required under Sec.313 of the Cr.P.C. has been recorded. He has denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him and has chosen to lead his rebuttal evidence.
7. Accused himself examined as DW.1 and on behalf of the Accused four documents have been produced and marked as per Ex.D.1 to D.4 and closed his side.
8. Heard and perused the written arguments submitted by learned counsel for Accused and perused the decisions submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant and Accused and materials on record.
9. On the basis of complaint, evidence of complainant and documents and having heard the 7 C.C.No.19353/2016 J arguments of both learned counsels for the complainant and the accused, the following points that are arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether the complainant proves that the accused has issued cheque for 594504 dated:2.5.2016 for sum of Rs.7,50,000/= drawn on State Bank of India, Rajajinagar, II Block, Subramanyanagar Bengaluru to discharge legally recoverable debt to the complainant and when the complainant has presented a cheque for encashment through his banker but the said cheques have been dishonoured for the reasons "Funds Insufficient" on 4.5.2016 and the complainant issued legal notice to the accused on 28.5.2016 and inspite of it the accused has not paid the cheque amount within prescribed period there by the accused has committed an offence U/s.138 of the Negotiable instruments Act?
2. What Order?
10. The above points are answered as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2:As per final order for the following:
REASONS
11. Point No.1: Before appreciation of the facts and oral and documentary evidence of the present 8 C.C.No.19353/2016 J case, it is relevant to mention that under criminal jurisprudence prosecution is required to establish guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubts however, a proceedings U/s.138 of N.I.Act is quasi criminal in nature. In these proceedings proof beyond all reasonable doubt is subject to presumptions as envisaged U/s.118, 139 and 136 of N.I.Act. An essential ingredient of Sec. 138 of N.I.Act is that, whether a person issues cheque to be encashed and the cheque so issued is towards payment of debt or liability and if it is returned as unpaid for want of funds, then the person issuing such cheque shall be deemed to have been committed an offence. The offence U/s.138 of N.I. Act pre-supposes three conditions for prosecution of an offence which are as under:
1. Cheque shall be presented for payment within specified time i.e., from the date of issue or before expiry of its validity.
2. The holder shall issue a notice demanding payment in writing to the drawer within one month from the date of receipt of information of the bounced cheque and 9 C.C.No.19353/2016 J
3. The drawer inspite of demand notice fails to make payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of such notice.
If the above said three conditions are satisfied by holder in due course gets cause action to launch prosecution against the drawer of the bounced cheque and as per Sec.142(b) of the N.I. Act, the complaint has to be filed within one month from the date on which cause of action arise to file complaint.
12. It is also one of the essential ingredients of Sec. 138 of N.I.Act that, a cheque in question must have been issued towards legally recoverable debt or liability. Sec. 118 and 139 of N.I.Act envisages certain presumptions i.e., U/s.118 a presumption shall be raised regarding 'consideration' 'date' 'transfer' 'endorsement' and holder in course of Negotiable Instrument. Even Sec.139 of the Act are rebuttable presumptions shall be raised that, the cheque in question was issued regarding discharge of a legally recoverable or enforceable debt and these presumptions are mandatory presumptions that are required to be raised in cases of negotiable instrument, but the said presumptions are not 10 C.C.No.19353/2016 J conclusive and rebuttable one, this proportion of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in catena of decisions.
13. In the present case the complainant got examined as PW.1 by filing his affidavit evidence wherein he has reiterated the entire averments of the complaint and in her evidence testified that, the Accused is the Assistant Manager of Deepak Co- operative Bank, Vidyaranyapura Branch, Bengaluru. Earlier, she had taken loan of Rs.20 Lakhs from Sahakara Co-operative Bank, Kodigehalli Branch, Yelahanka Bengaluru with the help of brokers i.e one Anand and Raju and also availed personal loan from some other persons and the said brokers have recommended her to get a loan in Deepak Co- operative Bank, Vidyaranyapura Branch, accordingly her husband Jayaram along with the brokers contacted the Accused and manager by name Kulkarni of the said bank seeking for loan at that time, the Accused promised to get sanction of the loan to the tune of Rs.40 Lakhs. The complainatn/PW.1 further testified that, during 11 C.C.No.19353/2016 J January 2014 the Accused got sanctioned a loan of Rs.20 Lakhs only, at the time of sanctioning of loan the Accused took blank cheques from her husband i.e., cheques bearing No. 492737, 492738, 492739, 492740, and 492744 of SBI, Vijayanagar Branch, and also took another two blank cheques on 23.9.2014 bearing nos. 492749 and 492750 of the said bank and also received blank cheques from her for security bearing nos. 001028, 001029, 001030, 001031 and 001032 of City Union Bank, Banashankari 3rd Stage, Bengaluru. The complainant/PW.1 further testified that, during January 2014 she had withdrawn an amount of Rs.19 Lakhs, out of the said amount the Accused had taken a sum of Rs.9,50,000/= as a hand loan from her and Rs.6 Lakhs for brokerage i.e. Anand and Raju forcibly taken from her and the Accused promised to return the said amount within three months as the said amount is required for production of his film, accordingly she has paid the amount as the Accused will get sanction of the loan. The complainant/PW.1 further testified that, after two months from the date of receiving the loan amount, the Accused promptly returned a sum of 12 C.C.No.19353/2016 J Rs.2 Lakhs to her and still due to the tune of Rs.7,50,000/= and after several request and demand made by her, the Accused had issued cheque in question i.e. Ex.P.1 bearing No. 594504 dated:
2.5.2016 for sum of Rs.7,50,000/= drawn on State Bank of India, Rajajinagar, II Block, Subramanyanagar, Bengaluru and assured to honour the said cheque on its presentation.
Thereafter, she was presented the said cheque for encashment through her banker i.e., City Union Bank Ltd., Banashankari branch, Bengaluru but the said cheque was dishonoured with the endorsement of "Funds Insufficient' dated: 4.5.2016 and thereafter she approached the Accused and informed about the dishonour of cheque and also demanded the Accused to pay the amount but he had drag on the same on one pretext or other, finally on 28.5.2016 she got issued legal notice through her counsel to the Accused by RPAD and also through courier and the same have been duly served on the Accused on 30.5.2016 but the Accused neither paid the amount covered under the cheque nor replied to the notice.
13 C.C.No.19353/2016 J14. In support of her oral evidence, P.W.1 has relied upon the documentary evidence as per Ex.C.1 to C.6 i.e., Original Cheque dated:-2.5.2016 as per Ex.C.1, the signature on the said cheque identified by P.W.1 as that of the accused as per Ex.C.1(a), the Bank Memo as per Ex.C.2, the office copy of the Legal Notice as per Ex.C.3, the Postal Receipt as per Ex.C.4, courier receipt as per Ex.C.5, postal acknowledgement as per Ex.C.6.
15. In the present case, the Accused has not disputed that, the cheque in dispute i.e Ex.C.1 is belongs to his account and signature found at Ex.C.1(a) is that of his signature and the cheque in question presented for encashment and dishonoured for the reason of "Funds Insufficient" since as matter on record, proved by return memo i.e. C.2 issued by the concerned bank dated: 4.5.2016, therefore it is a matter on record and has been proved that, the cheque in question was presented within its validity period and dishonoured as per the bank endorsement issued by the banker of accused. It is also not in dispute that, the cheque in question i.e. Ex.C.1 belongs to the account of the accused and 14 C.C.No.19353/2016 J has not denied his signature which is appearing at Ex.C.1(a).
16. In relation to the service of notice the Accused only during the course of cross-examination of the complainant has denied the service of notice by suggesting that, the legal notice caused by her was not served on the Accused and the signature appearing at Ex.C.6 is not of his signature, but the complainant has denied the said suggestions and ignored the signature of the Accused on Ex.C.6. But the Accused in his defence evidence, has not stated anything about the alleged non service of legal notice on him and even he has not denied the service of notice upon him and also signature found on Ex.C.6 as it is not of his signature and has also not disputed the address shown by the complainant in legal notice i.e Ex.C.3, postal receipt and acknowledgement i.e Ex.C.4 and C.6 as not of his address or is not the correct address and even has not stated that, he is not residing the address shown by the complainant in legal notice i.e Ex.C.3. The Accused has also not produced any documents on his behalf to disprove the address mentioned in the 15 C.C.No.19353/2016 J legal notice, postal receipt and acknowledgement is not of his address or correct address or was/is residing in the said address as on the date of issuance of the notice. The Accused has also not examined the concerned postal authorities to disprove the signature appearing at Ex.C.6 is either got created by the complainant or the same has not been served on him. Even it is not the defence of the Accused that, the signature appearing on Ex.C.6 is got created by the complainant with the postal authorities, in such circumstances only on the basis of oral suggestion made to the complainant/Pw.1 in her cross-examination, it cannot be held that, the legal notice caused by the complainant was not served on the Accused. Therefore, in view of non disputing of address of the Accused in the legal notice as well as on postal receipt and postal acknowledgement makes it clear that, the Accused has admitted that, the legal notice caused by the complainant was issued to his correct address through a RPAD , under such circumstances, it can be held that, the notice sent by the complainant to the correct address of the Accused is presumed to have been served on him U/s. 27 of General Clauses 16 C.C.No.19353/2016 J Act. In this regard, it is relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble High Court of India reported in 2008(4) Civil code cases 027 (SC) "M/s. Indo Automobiles Vs., M/s. Jai Durga Enterprises and others." wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, notice sent by registered post with acknowledgement to a correct address-service of notice has to be presumed. Therefore in view of the principles of law in the above decisions, it can be safely held that, the service of notice on accused in this case is presumed to have been served on him since in this case also the complainant has issued notice to the accused to his correct address through registered post and the said notice was served on the Accused as per Ex.C.6 hence, the service of notice is held to be proper service and for the above said reasons, the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the accused that, the notice issued by the complainant was not served on the accused and the complainant has not complied the mandatory requirements of Sec.138(b) of N.I.Act and complaint is not maintainable cannot be acceptable and are not sustainable.
17 C.C.No.19353/2016 J17. It is the specific defence of the Accused that, the complainant is not known to him and he has not borrowed any amount from the complainant much less the amount in question and has not issued the cheque in question i.e. Ex.C.1 to the complainant towards discharge of the alleged loan amount. The learned counsel for the complainant, during the course of cross-examination of the complainant, though he has cross examined in length, but nothing has been elicited to discredit or discard her evidence instead of eliciting anything material from the complainant, the Accused rather concentrated on non mentioning of the date of loan advanced by the complainant in the legal notice and complainant and the date of repayment of Rs.2 Lakhs by the Accused and non securing of documents by the complainant at the time of advancing the loan amount and non production of the documents about granting of loan by the Deepak Co-operative Bank infavour of the complainant. It is true that, the complainant has admitted that, she has not mentioned the date of lending of loan amount to the Accused in legal notice and complainant and date of repayment of Rs.2 Lakhs by 18 C.C.No.19353/2016 J the Accused to the complainant and except the cheque in question she has not collected any documents from the Accused in respect of lending of loan amount to the Accused. It is relevant here to mention that, the Accused while recording of statement U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. has clearly admitted to the specific question posed to him at question No.6 that during January 2014, he got sanctioned a loan of Rs.2 Lakhs to the complainant at that time, he had collected 5 blank cheques from her husband and also two cheques from the complainant, hence in view of admissions given by the Accused during the course of recording of his statement U/s.313, now he cannot deny the sanction of loan to the complainant by the Deepak Co-operative Bank and collecting of blank cheques and admitted facts need not be proved.
18. It is relevant here to mention that, the complainant during the course of her cross- examination has specifically stated that, she knows one Raju and Anand who are the agents and she had seen the Accused once in her house, when he was brought by Anand and Raju for the purpose of 19 C.C.No.19353/2016 J sanctioning the loan and the Accused and the said Raju, Anand had told her that the Accused was an Assistant manager in the bank. In addition to that, at page No.2 of the cross-examination of PW.1, the learned counsel for the defence has specifically suggested that, the complainant have been sanctioned with loan of Rs.20 Lakhs from Deepak Co-operative Bank, the said suggestion itself is sufficient to hold that, the Accused has admitted a loan of Rs.19 Lakhs sanctioned by Deepak Co- operative Bank in favour of the complainant. It is also specifically stated by the complainant that, the Accused has availed a loan of Rs.9.5 Lakhs from her on the day when she withdrawn the loan amount of Rs.19 Lakhs in order to produce the film and in order to show the said amount lent to the Accused, she had the disputed cheque of the Accused. Hence on careful perusal of the entire cross-examination of the complainant, she nowhere admitted the defence of the Accused and even the Accused has not elicited anything to disbelieve the claim of the complainant and the cheque in question was not issued to her towards discharge of the loan amount. The complainant specifically denied the suggestion made 20 C.C.No.19353/2016 J to her that, she had collected the cheque in dispute from one Anand and Raju though the Accused has not availed any loan from her.
19. The learned counsel for the Accused in his written argument much argued that, the complaint is not maintainable since the complainant has not produced any documents in support of her claim and failed to prove that, on which particular day, the alleged loan was given to the Accused and also failed to produce documents to show that, Deepak Co- opertive Bank sanctioned a loan of Rs.20 Lakhs to the complainant and out of the said amount, the complainant had lent a loan of Rs.9.5 Lakhs to the Accused and the Accused has returned Rs.2 Lakhs to her and issued the subject cheque in question for remaining alleged balance loan amount. It is also argued that, the complainant in her cross- examination has admitted that, she has not produced any documents for having availed the loan and on which particular date, the said alleged loan was given to the Accused. It is also argued that, the burden is upon the complainant to prove legally enforceable debt payable by the Accused but the 21 C.C.No.19353/2016 J complainant admitted in her cross-examination that, no documents are produced by her in support of her claim in addition to Ex.C.1 to C.6, therefore the Accused has no due payable to the complainant. In support of the arguments, the learned counsel has relied upon the decisions reported in 1) Crl.Appeal No.4694/2008 in case of Sanjay Mishra Vs. Kanishka Kapoor @ Nikki, 2) Soft System & Solutions (P) V/s H.N.Giridar, Karnataka High Court dated: 14.12.2007, 3) (2014) 2 Supreme Court cases 236 in the case of John K. Abraham Vs. Simon K.Abraham and another 4) 2010 Crl.L.J 372 in the case of Srimathi Vs. Renuka,
5) 2015 AIR SCW 64 in the case of K.Subramani Vs. K.Damodar Naidu, 6) ILR 2008 KAR 4629 int eh case of Shivamurthyu Vs. Amruthrai 7) 2008 Crl.L.Journal 1172;
20. The learned counsel for the defence argued that, in view of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of India, and High Court of Karnataka and Kerala in the present case also the complainant has failed to prove the legally recoverable debt as against the accused by 22 C.C.No.19353/2016 J producing the documents i.e. to show that, she has lent a loan amount in question to the Accused and to show that, as on the date of lending of loan amount, she was having sufficient source of income or she got sanctioned loan amount from Deepak Co- operative Bank, as claimed by her and has also not examined, the alleged brokers Anand and Raju in order to prove her claim, in such circumstances, the Accused is liable to be acquitted.
21. It is important to note here that, on careful perusal of the entire oral and documentary evidence produced by the complainant i.e Ex.C.1 to C.6 and admitted facts by the Accused as it is already held in the above that, the complainant proved that the cheque in question belongs to the Accused i.e Ex.C.1 and signature found at Ex.C.1(a) is that of the signature of the Accused and also proved that, the cheque in question was presented within its validity period and it was dishonoured for the reason of "Funds Insufficient" as per Ex.C.2 and thereafter the legal notice caused by him through RPAD to the Accused was served on him, in such circumstances, it can be held that, the complainant has discharged 23 C.C.No.19353/2016 J her initial burden by complying the mandatory requirements as required U/s.138 of N.I.Act and initial presumptions are available in favour of the complainant as required U/s.118a and 139 of the N.I.Act. Consequently it is for the Accused to rebut the said presumptions available in favour of the complainant to show that, the cheque in question was not issued either to the complainant or towards discharge of any legally recoverable debt by producing cogent and convincible evidence but not mere suggestions or even by plausible explanation. In such circumstances, when the presumptions U/s.118 and 139 of N.I.Act are drawn in favour of the complainant, even such presumption can also be drawn to the extent of existence of legally recoverable debt or liability against the Accused unless and until the said presumptions are rebutted by the Accused, even in the absence of documents produced by the complainant with regard to loan transaction in question. In this regard, it is relevant here to refer the decisions reported in 2001 AIR Karnataka HCR 2154 between 'M/s.Devi Tyres V/s.Navab Jan' and in 2011 ACD 1521 (KAR) between 'Smt. Usha Suresh V/s. Shashidharn', in 24 C.C.No.19353/2016 J 2010 SC 1898 between 'Rangappa Vs. Mohan' and 2011 ACD 1412 (KAR) between 'N.Hasainar Vs. M.Hasainar, S/o. Ibrahim'. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above decision i.e., 2001 AIR Karnataka HCR 2154 at para No.6 was pleased to hold that issuance of cheque itself was adequate proof of existence of debt or liability. In another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India i.e. Hon'ble Three Judges Bench Decision reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441 in the case of Rangappa Vs. Sri. Mohan ., wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - S.139 -
Presumption under - scope of - Held, presumption mandated by S. 139 includes a presumption that there exists a legally
enforceable debt or liability - However such presumption is rebuttable in nature - Criminal Trial - Proof - Presumptions - Generally. Further held that "Signature on the cheque was his, statutory presumption under S.139 comes into play and the same was not rebutted even with regard to the materials submitted by complainant Appellant not able to prove "lost cheque" theory - Apart from not raising a 25 C.C.No.19353/2016 J probable defence appellant was also not able to contest the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability - hence, his conviction by High Court, held, proper. In another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India, reported in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 508 OF 2018 DT 15-03-2018 between ROHITBHAI JIVANLAL PATEL Vs STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR held that "Negotiable Instruments Act facts like source of funds are not relevant if the Accused has not been able to rebut the presumption. It is further held that " When such a presumption is drawn, the facts relating to the want of documentary evidence in the form of receipts or accounts or want of evidence as regards source of funds were not of relevant consideration while examining if the Accused has been able to rebut the presumption or not". In another decision of Hon'ble Apex court of India decided in Crl.Appeal No.1545 of 2019 dt.17/10/2019 by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the case of Uttam Ram Vs. Devinder Singh Hudan and Anr. Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "
Dishonor of cheque - Statutory presumption under - burden to prove - the burden is on the 26 C.C.No.19353/2016 J accused to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued not for any debt or other liability - it is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer - even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused which is towards some payment, would attract presumption U/s. 139 of NI Act - the accused is held guilty of dishonour of cheque for an offence U/s.s.138 of NI Act. It is also held that, " the accused has failed to lead any evidence to rebut the statutory presumption, a finding returned by both the Trial Court and High Court. Both courts not only erred in law but also committed perversity when the due amount is said to be disputed only on the account of discrepancy in the cartons, packing materials or the rate to determine the total liability as if the appellant was proving his debt before the civil court. Therefore it is presumed that, the cheque in question were drawn for consideration and the holder of the cheques received the same in existing debt". It is also held that, " the Trial court 27 C.C.No.19353/2016 J and the High Court proceeded as if, the appellant is to prove a debt before civil Court wherein, the plaintiff is required to prove his claim on the basis of evidence to be laid in support of his claim for the recovery of the amount due. A dishonour of cheque carries statutory presumption of consideration. The holder of cheque in due course is required to prove that, the cheque was issued by the Accused and that when the same presented , it was not honoured Since there is a statutory presumption of consideration, the burden is on the Accused to rebut the presumption that, the cheque was issued not for any debt or other liability ". It is also relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2019 KAR 493 in the case of Sri.Yogesh Poojary Vs. Sri.K.Shankara Bhat, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that, the presumption mandated by Sec.139 of N.I Act includes the presumption that, there existed a legally enforceable debt or liability, however such presumption is rebuttable in nature". In another decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka 28 C.C.No.19353/2016 J in the case of Shri.V.R.Shresti Vs. Shri. Bhaskara.P. in Crl. Appeal No. 2109/2017 dated: 15.10.2019 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that "the Accused has not given any reply to the notice and also in the cross- examination, he categorically admits that, the cheque has bounced on account of no sufficient fund in the bank account of the Accused. Mere non producing of the document before the court with regard to the source of income to advance a loan is not a ground to dismiss the complaint. The Accused ought to have rebutted the contention of the complainant by producing cogent evidence before the court and mere denial is not enough".
22. Therefore on careful reading of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India and High Court of Karnataka in the above referred decisions makes it very clear that, once the holder in due course i.e. the complainant proved that, the cheque in question belongs to the account of drawer i.e Accused and signature appearing on the cheque is that of the drawer i.e., 29 C.C.No.19353/2016 J Accused and complied the mandatory requirements as required U/s.138 (a) to (c) of N.I.Act, presumptions U/s.118a and 139 of N.I.Act indeed does extend to the existence of legally recoverable debt and when such presumption is drawn, the facts relating to the want of documentary evidence in the form of receipts or accounts or want of evidence regarding source of funds were not of relevant unless the Accused rebutted the presumptions drawn on favour of the complainant as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court of Karnataka in the above decisions. In the present case also the complainant has complied mandatory requirements as required U/s.138 of N.I. Act and has proved that, the Accused has issued the cheque in question and the Accused has admitted the cheque belongs to him and signature appearing on the cheque is that of his signature and even service of the notice caused by the complainant, but he has not given any reply or complied the terms of the notice, in such circumstances, presumptions have to be drawn towards existence of legally enforceable debt as per Sec.139 of N.I.Act.
30 C.C.No.19353/2016 J23. Therefore, for the above said reasons the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the defence i.e., the complainant has not produced any documents to show that, she had lend the loan amount of Rs. 9,50,000/= to the accused and has failed to produce any document to prove that, she has lent the loan amount to the Accused and has not collected any documents from the Accused to show that, she has lent the loan amount to him, cannot be acceptable one. Therefore the line of arguments canvassed by the learned defence counsel for the defence appears that, the complainant has to prove her claim by producing her evidence as if it is required for proving her debt before the Civil Court, cannot be acceptable one in view of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court of India in the above referred decisions, therefore in view of the principles of law laid down in the above referred decisions it is presumed that, the cheque in question was drawn for consideration as the Accused has admitted the cheque in question belongs to him and signature found on the cheque in question is also that of his signature. It is also relevant here to mention that, on careful reading of the principles of 31 C.C.No.19353/2016 J law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court of India and Hon'ble High Courts relied upon by the learned counsel for the Accused, with due respect to the principles of law the same are not helpful for the Accused in this case to prove his defence and the fact and circumstances of the present case and facts and circumstances of the decided cases are not one and the same.
24. The learned counsel for the Accused during the course of cross-examination of complainant has elicited certain facts with regard to difference in ink i.e., ink used to write date, name of the complainant and amount mentioned in the words is in one ink and the amount mentioned in the figure is in another ink. The learned counsel has also argued that, in view of the said admissions the Accused has not issued the cheque in dispute and the amount mentioned in the cheque was not due by the Accused as on the date of presentation of the cheque and in the absence of certainty regarding the amount and payee at the time of issue, the cheque cannot said to be valid one though it bears signature of the drawer and subsequent insertion of the 32 C.C.No.19353/2016 J amount and name of payee without knowledge of drawer of the instrument amount to material alteration U/s.87 of N.I. Act and in support of his argument relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala reported in 1995 (2) KLJ 625 in the case of State Bank of India, Vs. Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation and argued that, in view of the principles of law laid down in the said decision the cheque in subject is also materially altered by the complainant without the consent of the Accused. The leraned counsel has also relied upon the judgment reported in 2011(5) KCCR 4223 in the case of M.B.Rajashetkar Vs. Savithramma , 2002 (7) Supreme - 598 in the case of C.Antony Vs. K.G.Raghavan.
25. It is true that, the complainant in her cross-examination admitted that, there is a difference in ink used for writing of date, her name and amount written in the words while comparing with the amount written in figure, except the said admission the complainant nowhere admitted that, or it is not the suggestion made on behalf of the Accused that, the cheque in question is materially 33 C.C.No.19353/2016 J altered by the complainant. Now it is to be considered whether the difference in ink in writings of cheque amounts to material alteration or not and even for sake of discussion, if the defence of the Accused is taken into consideration that, he has issued the blank signed cheque, even in such circumstances, if it is assumed that, the contents of the subject cheque are not filled in by the Accused, under such circumstances also, unless and until the Accused has proved his defence by producing cogent and convincible evidence, it cannot be held that, the contents of the cheque have been filled in by the complainant. In this regard, it is a relevant here to refer a decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in a case of Crl. Appeal No. 1664/2003 C/w. Crl.Apeepal No. 1663/2003 dated: 18.6.2008 in the case of R.Mallikarjuna Vs. H.R.Sadashivaiah wherein the Hon'ble High Court at para No.19 held that " But, the question is, whether that renders instrument unenforceable. In this regard, it must be observed that, this court similar circumstances in the case of S.R. Muralidar Vs. Ashok G.Y. reported in 3001 (4) KAR. LJ K. 122 referring to 34 C.C.No.19353/2016 J the provisions of Sections 20, 138, 139, and 140 of the Act and after interpreting alteration and filling up of the cheque observed thus :
"The trial court has made much about the difference in ink. Admittedly, Accused cheque is issued bearing signature of the Accused. It is the contention of the defence that, blank cheques issued for the business transactions have been illegally converted as a subject matter to this case fastening false liability........ It is not objectionable or illegal in law to receive a inchoate negotiable instrument duly signed by the maker despite the material particulars are kept blank if done with an understanding and giving full authority to the payee to fill up the material contents as agreed upon. Such a course of action in law cannot vitiate the transaction nor can invalidate the negotiable instrument issued and such transaction fully begins the maker of the negotiable instrument to the extent it 35 C.C.No.19353/2016 J purports to declare........ The fact that, a document executed is inchoate with regard to some of the material particulars would not render such contract invalid nor make the instrument illegal or inadmissible. Voluntarily, if a person were to deliver an inchoate instrument authorizing the receiver to fill up the material contents as agreed upon, the cheque does not get tainted as in admissible nor it amounts to tampering with the material particulars...... In the present case there is no categorical defence version, it is only by conjunctures and surmises, a case is made out from the difference in ink between the signature of the cheque and the other handwritten contents.
Hence, in view of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the same were aptly applicable to the case on hand and the defence of the Accused cannot be acceptable one as the instrument i.e. cheque in question cannot be 36 C.C.No.19353/2016 J rendered unenforceable merely because the contents have been filled by different ink, as it would not render such instrument illegal or inadmissible, the complainant certainly can base action on it.
26. It is also relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay decided in CRM - M No.2607/2018 (O & M) dated: 27th August 2019 in the case of Kailash vati Vs. M/s. Ludiana Beverages wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that " A). Negotiable Instrument Act 1881, Sec.138 and 6 - dishonour of cheque -date of drawn - determination of- the date on which the cheque is drawn has to be with reference to the date mentioned in the column in the cheque and not the date on which it is /was signed - date when the cheque is drawn is not defined in the Act- if the date of signing cheque is accepted then all post dated cheques cannot be treated as valid cheques within and drawer of cheques would stand absolved from criminal prosecution if cheques are presented after three months of date on signatures were appended (para No.16) 37 C.C.No.19353/2016 J (B) negotiable Instrumetn Act-1881, Sec. 87 -
Material alteration -extent of - whether filling up the date and the amount would fall within the definition of material alteration - held filling in the blank shall not be always required to be treated as a material alteration- the alteration in the common parlance is understood to mean, something already been written has been changed/altered subsequently - alternation is permissible if it is made in order to carry out the common intention of original parties (para 25) .
Hence in view of the principles of law laid down in the above decisions the Hon'ble High Court held that, filling up the date and amount shall not be always required to be treated as material alteration, in the present case also it is not the defence of the Accused that, in the disputed cheques something already been written has been changed or altered subsequently, in such circumstances, the defence taken by the Accused with regard to alleged alteration of subject cheque in question cannot be acceptable one.
38 C.C.No.19353/2016 J27. In addition to the above, it is also relevant here to refer the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court of India reported in AIR 2019 SC 2446 in the case of Birsingh Vs. Mukesh Kumar., wherein the Hon'ble apex Court held that, "presumption U/s.139 is presumption of law, distinguished from presumption of facts and also held that, presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with presumption of innocence which requires prosecution to prove case against the Accused and also held that obligation on the prosecution may discharged with the help of presumptions of law and presumption of fact unless the accused adduces evidence showing reasonable plausibility of non existence of presumed fact." In the present case though the Accused has denied the contents of the cheque in question except his signature but he did not prove his defence or produced any documents or satisfactory evidence to rebut the presumptions as available U/s.139 of the N.I.Act, under such circumstances in view of the above principles of law, it can be presumed even on fact also that the complainant has proved her case by discharging her 39 C.C.No.19353/2016 J burden and complying the mandatory provisions. In the said decision the Hon'ble Apex court has also held that, "presumption as to legally enforceable debt is rebuttable, the signed blank cheque if voluntarily presented to payee towards payment payee may fill up amount and other particulars and it in itself would not invalidate cheque and onus would still be on the accused to prove that, cheque was not issued or discharge of debt or liability by adducing evidence." In another decision of Hon'ble Apex court of India decided in Crl.Appeal No.1545 of 2019 dt.17/10/2019 by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the case of Uttam Ram Vs. Devinder Singh Hudan and Anr. Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "
Dishonor of cheque - Statutory presumption under - burden to prove - the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued not for any debt or other liability - it is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer - even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused which is 40 C.C.No.19353/2016 J towards some payment, would attract presumption U/s. 139 of NI Act - the accused is held guilty of dishonour of cheque for an offence U/s.s.138 of NI Act. In such circumstances even if it is assumed that, the complainant admitted that, the contents of cheque in question were filled in by her in view of the principles of law laid down in the above decision that itself would not invalidates the cheque in question and it can be presumed that, the cheque was filled in by the complainant in presence of the Accused at his consent and the said cheque has been issued towards discharge of legally recoverable debt. Therefore the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the Accused in this regard, cannot be acceptable one and with due respect to the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court and High Court of Kerala relied upon by the learned counsel in support of his argument are not helpful to the Accused in this case.
28. It is relevant here to mention that, the Accused in order to rebut the presumption available to the complainant U/s.118 and 139 of N.I. Act himself examined as DW.1, in his evidence has 41 C.C.No.19353/2016 J stated that, he does not know the complainant and has not borrowed any loan amount as claimed by her and has not issued the cheque towards discharge of alleged loan. The DW.1 further stated that, earlier he was working as a clerk in Deepak co- operative bank from the year 2005 to 2014, at that time he was acquaintance with the husband of the complainant, one Anand and Raju and the husband of the complainant is also the customer of his bank and the said Anand and Raju are the agents of his bank and the Anand has also borrowed loan from his bank. The Accused further deposed that, there were a financial transaction between him, Anand and Raju , in connection with the said transaction he issued a blank signed cheque to the said Raju and the said Raju misused the blank signed cheque issued by him and on the basis of said cheque the complainant filed this false case against him. In support of oral evidence the Accused has produced his appointment letter issued by Deepak Sahakari Bank Ltd., is at Ex.D.1, endorsement issued by PSI Vidyaranyapura Ps Bengaluru dated: 20.12.2013 as per Ex.D.2, and attested true copy of the complaint given by the Accused is as per Ex.D.3, and true 42 C.C.No.19353/2016 J copy of the endorsement of Ex.D.1 is as per Ex.D.4.
29. It is important to note here that, on careful perusal of the defence of the Accused makes it clear that, according to him there were financial transaction between him, Anand and Raju and in respect of the said transaction he got issued a blank signed cheque to one Raju and the said Raju has misused his signed blank cheque and on the basis of said cheque the complainant has filed this false case. It is interesting to note that, the Accused in his evidence has nowhere stated that, how the complainant and the said Raju are related to each other and for what purpose the said Raju has given his blank signed cheque to the complainant and on which date, month and year the Accused had given his blank signed cheque to the said Raju and in turn on which date, month and year the said Raju the said cheque has been given to the complainant, therefore in the absence of such materials only on the basis of bald allegations made by the Accused with regard to issuance of alleged blank singed cheque to one Raju cannot be acceptable one. Even the Accused has not stated what are the financial 43 C.C.No.19353/2016 J transactions alleged to have been took place between him, Anand and Raju and has not stated about alleged issue of blank signed cheque related to which transaction, therefore in the absence of such materials the oral evidence of the Accused that too without there being any supporting documentary proof cannot be acceptable one. Therefore the entire oral evidence of the Accused cannot be acceptable one as it appears to be a mere denial of the loan transaction in question and issuance of the cheque and only to avoid the liability to pay the cheque amount, therefore the oral evidence of the Accused in the absence of documentary proof it cannot be held that, the Accused has rebutted the presumption available to the complainant U/s.118a and 139 of N.I. Act.
30. The Accused has also produced documents i.e Ex.D.2 and D.3 but he nowhere stated about the existence of Ex.D.2 and D.3 in his evidence, therefore in the absence of evidence the Ex.D.2 and D.3 cannot be acceptable one. Apart from that, the perusal of Ex.D.2 and D.3 wherein it is seen that, the Accused lodge a complaint before the 44 C.C.No.19353/2016 J Vidyaranyapura police station alleging that, he had been taken amount from Mr.Raju and Anand for his personal use on 4.5.2013 by giving the cheques , on demand as a security cheques and after six months time he return back the amount with interest and settled the amount but now after taking back the amount they are not giving back his documents, cheques, on demand etc. But the Accused has not produced the certified copy of the complaint issued by the concerned police station and the Ex.D.3 is attested by one Head Master of Ambedkar Smaraka High School, Mahalakshmipuram Bengaluru, but he has not stated anything as to non production of certified or true copies of the complaint and endorsement issued by the concerned police station and even it is not the defence of the Accused that he approached the police station concerned, but they did not issue the copy of the complaint given by him, in such circumstances, the documents i.e Ex.D.3 and D.4 produced by the Accused cannot be taken into consideration. In addition to that, even for sake of discussion if it is assumed that, the complainant lodged the complaint before the Vidyaranyapura police station as per Ex.D.3 , but on perusal of the 45 C.C.No.19353/2016 J Ex.D.3 there is no endorsement issued by the concerned police regarding receipt of the said complaint given by the Accused and there is no signature or seal found on Ex.D.3 with regard to receipt of the said complaint, on this count also it cannot be held that, the Accused has lodged the complaint as per Ex.D3. Apart from that, if really the Accused has lodged the complaint before the police, as per Ex.D.3, and the said complaint was received by the police and registered by them , definitely the Accused could have produced the FIR copy and investigation report to show that, the complaint lodged by him was received by the concerned police and case was registered on the basis of his complaint and investigation was conducted by the police, therefore in the absence of such material document it cannot be held that, the Accused has issued blank signed cheques to Mr.Raju and Anand as alleged by him in Ex.D.3. Even for sake of discussion if it is assumed that, Ex.D.3 has been filed by the Accused but the Accused has not produced any document to show that, the allegation made by him in Ex.D.3 are found tobe true at the time of investigation by the police or on the basis of 46 C.C.No.19353/2016 J his complaint the police have conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the persons to whom he has made the allegations, but no such documents have been produced by the Accused, under such circumstances only on the basis of Ex.D.2 to D.4 it cannot be held that, the Accused has issued signed blank cheque to one Raju and in turn he has misused the said cheque and on the basis of said cheque the complainant has filed false case against him.
31. It is also relevant here to mention that, according to the Accused he has issued the cheque in question as signed blanks cheque to one Raju relating to the loan transaction between him, Anad and Raju and it is also stated in Ex.D.3 that, the said cheque and other documents have been given to the Anand and Raju towards security of the loan and even after repayment of the amount with interest but they did not return the cheques and the said Raju misused his blank signed cheque with the complainant and filed this case against him. But as it is already held in the above that, the Accused has not produced any documents to show the alleged 47 C.C.No.19353/2016 J loan transaction between him, Anand and Raju and in turn he has repaid the loan amount to the said Raju along with interest, in such circumstances the defence taken by the Accused cannot be acceptable one. In this regard it is relevant here to refer the decision reported in 2015 (4) KCCR 2881 (SC) in the case of T. Vasanthakumar Vs. Vijayakumari wherein the Hon'ble Apex court held that, "
NEGOTIABLE ISNTRUCEMTNS Act, 1881- Section 138 and 139 - acquittal - If justified- Accused not disputing issuance of cheque and his signature on it - Plea that it was issued long back as security and that loan amount was repaid - Not supported by any evidence - Fact that date was printed, would not lend any evidence to case of accused- Acquittal not proper. Hence in the present case also it is the main defence of the Accused that the cheque in dispute alleged to have been issued towards security to one Raju and Ananda and the complainant by misusing the said cheque has filed this complaint, but the Accused has admitted the issuance of cheque and his signature on the said cheque and also taken defence that, the cheque was 48 C.C.No.19353/2016 J issued towards security but no documents or proof given by the Accused to prove his defence in such circumstances by applying the principles of law laid down in the above decision the defence of the Accused cannot be acceptable one.
32. It is also important to note here that, the Accused has not denied or disputed that the cheque in question as well as the signature therein do belong to him and though he has taken the specific defence that, he has issued blank signed cheque to one Mr.Raju in relation to their financial transaction and he has misused the said cheque and on the basis of said cheque, the complainant and her husband have filed this complaint against him. But the Accused has not stated either in his evidence or has not produced any documents how the cheque in question came in to the possession of the complainant, except his oral say nothing has been produced to prove the fact of entering the subject cheque in question into the hand of the complainant, in such circumstances the defence of the Accused cannot be acceptable one. This preposition of law finds support from the decisions of Hon'ble High 49 C.C.No.19353/2016 J Court of Karnataka reported in 2010(1) KCCR 176 in the case of "Siddappa Vs. Manjappa" and in the decision of Hon'ble Apex court of India decided in Crl.A.No.664 of 2012 dated: 19.9.2019 in the case of "M.Abbas Haji Vs. T.M.Chennakeshava"
held that, " the Accused has to explain how the cheque entered into the hands of complainant".
Therefore for the above said reasons the defense taken by the accused cannot be acceptable one and accused has miserably failed to rebut the presumption available in favour of the complainant by producing cogent and convincible evidence.
33. Therefore for the above said reasons arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the Accused in the written argument cannot be acceptable and are not sustainable, in view of the discussions made and findings given by the court while appreciating the oral and documentary evidence of the complainant and Accused and the Accused has miserably failed to rebut the presumptions available to the complainant as U/s.118a and 139 of N.I. Act.
50 C.C.No.19353/2016 J34. Therefore considering all these aspects of the case and totality of the circumstances and on careful and meticulous appreciation of evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant and accused the complainant has successfully established beyond all reasonable doubt that, she has lent a sum of Rs.9,50,000/= to the accused as a hand loan and out of the said amount the Accused has return an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs to her and has issued the subject cheque in question i.e. Ex.C.1 to the complainant towards repayment of the remaining hand loan, thereafter the complainant has presented the said cheque through her banker and same was returned dishonoured with an endorsement of "Funds Insufficient" and thereafter he got issued legal notice to the accused and the said notice was served on the Accused and inspite of it, the Accused did not repaid remaining loan amount, hence the complainant filed the present complaint against the accused. On the other hand, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption available infavour of the complainant with regard to the existence of legally recoverable debt under Ex.C.1 Cheque. Therefore accused has committed an offence punishable 51 C.C.No.19353/2016 J U/s.138 of N.I. Act, accordingly for the above said reasons this point is answered in the Affirmative.
35. Point No.2: Negotiable Instrument Act was enacted to bring credibility to the cheque and the very purpose of enactment is to promote the use of negotiable instrument, while to discourage the issuance of cheque without having sufficient funds in their accounts. Such being the case the intention of the legislature is that, complainant be suitable compensated while accused be punished for his act. Hence while awarding the compensation the said fact is to be kept in mind and suitable compensation is awarded to the complainant certainly it will not cause injustice to the accused, accordingly the complainant is entitled for the compensation as ordered by the court and for the said reasons, it is just and proper to pass the following :-
ORDER Acting U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act.
The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.7,75,000/= (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Seventy Five 52 C.C.No.19353/2016 J Thousand only) within one month from the date of order, in default he shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of (3) three months for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act.
Further acting U/sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C. out of the fine amount on recovery, a sum of Rs.7,70,000/= (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Seventy Thousand only) shall be paid as compensation to the complainant.
Further acting U/sec.357(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. out of fine amount on recovery a sum of Rs.5,000/= (Rupees Five Thousand only) shall be defrayed as prosecution expenses to the state.
The Bail bond of the Accused stands cancelled.
Office is directed to furnish free certified copy of this judgment to the Accused incompliance of Sec.363(1) of Cr.P.C.
(Directly dictated to the stenographer online, printout taken by her, verified, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23rd day of January 2020).
(SRI.S.B. HANDRAL), XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City.53 C.C.No.19353/2016 J
ANNEXURE
1. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the Complainant:-
P.W.1 : Smt.Gangadevi. G.R;
2. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Complainant:-
Ex.C-1 : Original Cheque; Ex.C-1(a) : Signature of the Accused; Ex.C-2 : Bank Memo; Ex.C-3 : Office copy of the Legal Notice; Ex.C-4 : Postal Receipt; Ex.C-5 : Courier Receipt; Ex.C-6 : Postal Acknowledgement;
3. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the Accused:-
DW.1 : Sri. Mahesh.G;
4. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Accused:-
Ex.D.1 : Appointment letter issued by Deepak Sahakari Bank Ltd., Ex.D.2 : Endorsement issued by PSI,Vidyaranyapura PS, Bengaluru dated: 20.12.2013, Ex.D.3 : Complaint given by the Accused ; Ex.D.4 : True copy of the endorsement.
(SRI.S.B.HANDRAL), XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City.54 C.C.No.19353/2016 J
23.1.2020 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order.
ORDER Acting U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act.
The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.7,75,000/= (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Seventy Five Thousand only) within one month from the date of order, in default he shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of (3) three months for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act.
Further acting U/sec.357(1) of
Cr.P.C. out of the fine amount on
recovery, a sum of Rs.7,70,000/=
(Rupees Seven Lakhs and
Seventy Thousand only) shall be
paid as compensation to the
complainant.
Further acting U/sec.357(1)(a) of
Cr.P.C. out of fine amount on
recovery a sum of Rs.5,000/=
(Rupees Five Thousand only)
shall be defrayed as prosecution
expenses to the state.
The Bail bond of the Accused
stands cancelled.
55 C.C.No.19353/2016 J
Office is directed to furnish free
certified copy of this judgment to
the Accused incompliance of
Sec.363(1) of Cr.P.C.
XVI ACMM, B'luru.